Does Your Neural Network Extrapolate? Feature Engineering as Identifiability Bias for OOD Generalization
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866917488002859008 |
|---|---|
| author | Aguilar, Leonel Nagler, Jan Hoelscher, Christoph Antulov-Fantulin, Nino |
| author_facet | Aguilar, Leonel Nagler, Jan Hoelscher, Christoph Antulov-Fantulin, Nino |
| contents | Successful deep neural networks discover salient features of data. We show when and why they fail to learn out-of-distribution (OOD)-relevant representations from an in-distribution (ID) training window. This requires decoupling feature learning from data-generating-process (DGP) identifiability. From a single training window, OOD extrapolation is non-identifiable: infinitely many DGPs are $\varepsilon$-observationally equivalent on the training data but diverge arbitrarily outside it, and no in-distribution criterion alone reliably breaks the tie. A structural commitment, the feature map, label map, and model class $(φ, ψ, \mathcal{M})$, dictates the assumed DGP and governs OOD generalization while leaving ID performance essentially unchanged. When architecture, pretraining, augmentation, input formats, or domain knowledge implicitly inject the missing commitment, the model succeeds. When it cannot infer OOD-relevant structure from ID evidence, it fails. Changing only the representation can make the same architecture, at the same in-distribution loss, differ by ${\sim}520\times$ out of distribution. When the commitment is correct and identifiable, OOD error vanishes. For example, Fourier coordinates turn periodic extrapolation into interpolation on $\mathbb{S}^1$. The same mechanism predicts outcomes in three natural-science settings (mass-action chemistry; Kepler's-third-law exoplanet prediction, $n=2{,}362$; and cross-species coding-DNA detection) and in a 264-run positional-encoding study across Transformer, Mamba, and S4D. Finally, a controlled study shows: correct features are necessary but not sufficient. The model class must express the target, and the transformed training data must cover the relevant representation space. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_07483 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Does Your Neural Network Extrapolate? Feature Engineering as Identifiability Bias for OOD Generalization Aguilar, Leonel Nagler, Jan Hoelscher, Christoph Antulov-Fantulin, Nino Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence Successful deep neural networks discover salient features of data. We show when and why they fail to learn out-of-distribution (OOD)-relevant representations from an in-distribution (ID) training window. This requires decoupling feature learning from data-generating-process (DGP) identifiability. From a single training window, OOD extrapolation is non-identifiable: infinitely many DGPs are $\varepsilon$-observationally equivalent on the training data but diverge arbitrarily outside it, and no in-distribution criterion alone reliably breaks the tie. A structural commitment, the feature map, label map, and model class $(φ, ψ, \mathcal{M})$, dictates the assumed DGP and governs OOD generalization while leaving ID performance essentially unchanged. When architecture, pretraining, augmentation, input formats, or domain knowledge implicitly inject the missing commitment, the model succeeds. When it cannot infer OOD-relevant structure from ID evidence, it fails. Changing only the representation can make the same architecture, at the same in-distribution loss, differ by ${\sim}520\times$ out of distribution. When the commitment is correct and identifiable, OOD error vanishes. For example, Fourier coordinates turn periodic extrapolation into interpolation on $\mathbb{S}^1$. The same mechanism predicts outcomes in three natural-science settings (mass-action chemistry; Kepler's-third-law exoplanet prediction, $n=2{,}362$; and cross-species coding-DNA detection) and in a 264-run positional-encoding study across Transformer, Mamba, and S4D. Finally, a controlled study shows: correct features are necessary but not sufficient. The model class must express the target, and the transformed training data must cover the relevant representation space. |
| title | Does Your Neural Network Extrapolate? Feature Engineering as Identifiability Bias for OOD Generalization |
| topic | Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07483 |